linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <9E76DD0A-7FB0-4BDB-A8B5-920265337ACB@amacapital.net>
Date:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 17:27:40 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall



> On Sep 13, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>> Should this be SYSCALL_DEFINE0?
> 
> It can be, and that would also fix the issue. However, it does result
> in unnecessary error injection to be hooked up here, which is why
> arm64 preferred to avoid the macro when I fixed it there. S390 uses
> SYSCALL_DEFINE0 for this though and since sys_ni_syscall always
> returns -ENOSYS, it shouldn't be a huge problem. Thoughts?
> 


I don’t see why all syscalls except these  few should have error injection hooked up.  It’s also IMO nicer from a maintenance perspective to have all syscalls use the same macros.

Will, is there something I’m missing?